• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Georgetown undergrads back fee to fund slavery reparations

JustHanging said:
Don't talk such nonsense. I contribute far more than I receive, and I agree with reparations. For Canada's First Nations people, and for blacks and First Nations people in the USA.

I also agree with helping my neighbours, whether they've got their hands out or not. It makes my country a better place to live for everyone. Maybe that's why my country has better education, better healthcare, less violence, less hatred, less racism, less incarceration, more environmental protection, more freedom, more freedom of the press, and on and on it goes.

Honestly, compared to Canada, the USA is currently a.....how did Trump describe it again...something that started with an "S" I believe ... country. And I believe that has a lot to do with the unabashed greed and gluttony of so many Americans.
Click to expand...

My preference would be to resolve the situation in accordance with the actual system of "land tenure" that existed at the time.

The original inhabitants of North America did NOT "own land" in the same sense as the Europeans did. Rather they (at least the non-migratory groups) had a system of REVOCABLE "land USE right". That "land USE right" could be terminated at any time by someone higher up the social ladder (in particular the "band chief').

Under European law, "land ownership right" differed from "land use right" in that a revocation of "land use right" was accompanied by a payment for the "loss of income". (Under the system of the original inhabitants of North America there was no need for any such payments.)

That means that, rather than continuing to pay "the band" for the loss of use of the land, which "the band" didn't actually exercise, the compensation would flow to the parties whose actual use of the land had been taken away.

That means that the payments should go to the individuals.

I previously did a rough calculation and that payment would come out to approximately $18,000 per year per "full blood" person who traces their ancestry back to the "original inhabitants of North America". Surprisingly enough, for Canada that worked out to approximately the same amount as the Department of Indian and Native Affairs (or whatever it's being called these days) was paying out to "the tribes".

If you hold 50% of the payments for minor children in trust, to be paid out when the child reaches the age of majority, that would mean that a "original inhabitant" family of four would receive around $54,000 p.a. TAX FREE. That should remove 100% of the "original inhabitant" families from the poverty roles AND would provide every child of an "original inhabitant" family with around $162,000 TAX FREE as "seed money" when they reached the age of 18.

If the "Band Council" wants to be paid $200,000 (each) per year, then the "Band Council" can simply go to the "band members" to get them to kick in towards it out of their own pockets. (My suspicion is that that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the percentage of the money allocated to "original inhabitants" that would be going to "local administration".)
 
$1000 said:
That money was flowing outside of the country, so you were increasing the money supply while not increasing the amount in internal circulation.
Click to expand...

What will be the US credit rating after the huuuuuuge buildup of gov't debt? Who is gonna buy those US bonds issued by US gov't to pay for astronomical gov't debt? Will the US owe allegiance to any of the creditor nations?

EDIT: You say more money will just be printed? That'll is a definite recipe for hyper-inflation.
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
My preference would be to resolve the situation in accordance with the actual system of "land tenure" that existed at the time.

The original inhabitants of North America did NOT "own land" in the same sense as the Europeans did. Rather they (at least the non-migratory groups) had a system of REVOCABLE "land USE right". That "land USE right" could be terminated at any time by someone higher up the social ladder (in particular the "band chief').

Under European law, "land ownership right" differed from "land use right" in that a revocation of "land use right" was accompanied by a payment for the "loss of income". (Under the system of the original inhabitants of North America there was no need for any such payments.)

That means that, rather than continuing to pay "the band" for the loss of use of the land, which "the band" didn't actually exercise, the compensation would flow to the parties whose actual use of the land had been taken away.

That means that the payments should go to the individuals.

I previously did a rough calculation and that payment would come out to approximately $18,000 per year per "full blood" person who traces their ancestry back to the "original inhabitants of North America". Surprisingly enough, for Canada that worked out to approximately the same amount as the Department of Indian and Native Affairs (or whatever it's being called these days) was paying out to "the tribes".

If you hold 50% of the payments for minor children in trust, to be paid out when the child reaches the age of majority, that would mean that a "original inhabitant" family of four would receive around $54,000 p.a. TAX FREE. That should remove 100% of the "original inhabitant" families from the poverty roles AND would provide every child of an "original inhabitant" family with around $162,000 TAX FREE as "seed money" when they reached the age of 18.

If the "Band Council" wants to be paid $200,000 (each) per year, then the "Band Council" can simply go to the "band members" to get them to kick in towards it out of their own pockets. (My suspicion is that that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the percentage of the money allocated to "original inhabitants" that would be going to "local administration".)
Click to expand...
I would rather A-As be encouraged to finish school and reap the benefits of the current booming economy, for examples. This is the way for the A-A community to become financially independent without hurting everyone in the process.

EDIT: Of course, I realize, your progressive, socialistic moral is to punish someone for the plight of A-A bondage...Too bad everyone will be punished with hyper-inflation.
 
Last edited:
Individual said:
If you want to go that route, why not just 50 sovereign countries, more like the EU?
Click to expand...

If you will check you will see that I never said that I "want to go that route". What I did was point out that that would (essentially) be the end result of the "solution" being advocated.
 
sanman said:
Meritocracy and Identity Politics represent different priorities. Decide which one you want to put ahead of the other.
Click to expand...

Didn't


"... Oh I know all about meritocracy. It's what we don't have. It's what I want. It exists when people who want to translate their labor into value have a chance to access the means of production without being mediated by a parasitic managerial caste. I distinctly don't want 'identity politics', ..."
​

do just that?
 
cabse5 said:
Because reparations for you isn't a progressive social moral to gain financial stability for the A-A community and because it's an election year, soon.
Click to expand...

One minor point, in the United States of America the "election year" is 1,461 days long.
 
cabse5 said:
What will be the US credit rating after the huuuuuuge buildup of gov't debt? Who is gonna buy those US bonds issued by US gov't to pay for astronomical gov't debt? Will the US owe allegiance to any of the creditor nations?
Click to expand...

They've been buying it for how long now? The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and we kneecap anyone who threatens it, so they will keep doing so. The idea of us owing allegiance to a creditor isn't accurate at all; if we default, the creditor would be destroyed overnight. It would essentially vaporize a huge segment of their wealth. The possibility of default gives us power over them, because there is no higher global policeman to call to collect the loan; we are the policeman. I'm sure the system will fall eventually, but it will be for geopolitical reasons.
 
$1000 said:
They've been buying it for how long now? The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and we kneecap anyone who threatens it, so they will keep doing so. The idea of us owing allegiance to a creditor isn't accurate at all; if we default, the creditor would be destroyed overnight. It would essentially vaporize a huge segment of their wealth. The possibility of default gives us power over them, because there is no higher global policeman to call to collect the loan; we are the policeman. I'm sure the system will fall eventually, but it will be for geopolitical reasons.
Click to expand...

For one, the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency of the world since the credit rating of the US would plummet with reparations. For two, the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency of the world if the US decided to print more money to pay for reparation debt.
 
cabse5 said:
I would rather A-As be encouraged to finish school and reap the benefits of the current booming economy, for examples. This is the way for the A-A community to become financially independent without hurting everyone in the process.
Click to expand...

Exactly how many of those "A-As" (as you have so cutesily termed them) have actually been to Africa (or even have a parent who has actually been to Africa)?

cabse5 said:
EDIT: Of course, I realize your progressive, socialistic moral is to punish someone for the plight of A-A bondage...Too bad everyone will be punished with hyper-inflation.
Click to expand...

Not MY agenda. Of course, if you had actually read what I wrote you would have known that, so I'll attribute your comment to you not having read what I wrote.

PS - Does someone of pure Dutch/English lineage who was born in South Africa
(and whose parents were all of pure Dutch/English lineage and were born in South Africa
[and whose grandparents were all of pure Dutch/English lineage and were born in South Africa
{and whose great grandparents were all of pure Dutch/English lineage and were born in South Africa
<and whose great great grandparents were all of pure Dutch/English lineage and were born in South Africa>}])​
and who is now an American citizen qualify as an "African-American"?

If your answer is "No." then please identify what is required to be an "AFRICAN-American".
Would it entail at least one parent having been born in Africa?
Would it entail at least one grandparent having been born in Africa?
Would it entail at least one great grandparent having been born in Africa?
Would it entail at least one great great grandparent having been born in Africa?
​

If so, does someone of pure "Negroid" lineage and who was born in France
(and whose parents were all of pure "Negroid" lineage and who was born in France
[and whose grandparents were all of pure "Negroid" lineage and who was born in France
{and whose great grandparents were all of pure "Negroid" lineage and who was born in France
<and whose great great grandparents were all of pure "Negroid" lineage and who was born in France>}])​
and who is now an American citizen qualify as an "African-American"?

Or is all that is required is that the person "be 'Black'"?

If so, HOW 'Black' would they have to be:
100%;
75%;
50%;
25%;
12.5%;
6.25%;
3.125%;
​

or is "Not as 'White' as I am." a sufficiency?
 
cabse5 said:
For one, the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency of the world since the credit rating of the US would plummet with reparations. For two, the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency of the world if the US decided to print more money to pay for reparation debt.
Click to expand...

Lol, we've gone 20 trillion into debt, but reparations would break the bank? That's beside the point, I support land redistribution anyway. The five largest landowners in the US own more land than all black people in America combined. Take it. Hell, take it from the top 100 land owners. There we go. Then you can put resources into building and renovating towns which make more sense, ones that are walkable and more self-contained. And these are investments which would actually pay off because guess what? Black people who have access to the means of production don't need so much assistance. They get out of the cities. Same goes for the rust belt.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
I should've posted election season. Sue me.
Click to expand...

Mexico has the Partido Revolucionario Institucional.

The US has the Institutional Election Campaign Party (Democratic Wing) and the Institutional Election Campaign Party (Republican Wing).
 
$1000 said:
They've been buying it for how long now? The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and we kneecap anyone who threatens it, so they will keep doing so. The idea of us owing allegiance to a creditor isn't accurate at all; if we default, the creditor would be destroyed overnight. It would essentially vaporize a huge segment of their wealth. The possibility of default gives us power over them, because there is no higher global policeman to call to collect the loan; we are the policeman. I'm sure the system will fall eventually, but it will be for geopolitical reasons.
Click to expand...

Minor point here, but the US Dollar is NOT "THE reserve currency of the world".

Admittedly the US Dollar does constitute around 60% of the total of the world's "reserve currencies" - at present. (In 1970, the US Dollar constituted around 85% of the world's "reserve currencies". In 2016 the US Dollar constituted around 65.73% of the world's "reserve currencies". In 2008, it was around 63.77%. In 2000 it was around 71.13%)
 
3leftsdoo said:
Weird that there's so much opposition to something so fair and moral.

But some of the naysayers on this also oppose socialized medicine, so maybe it's the same bizarre mindset.

The very real and devastating legacy of slavery?

Meh. :roll:

Some imaginary injury to white people?

End of the world!!!!! :bomb:
Click to expand...


Can we have some common sense the Union Army (the North) paid in death and injury to free slaves. The Southern plantations were broken up (40 acres and a mule) to the point by 1910 15m acres were owned by African Americans.

Booker T. Washington was against reparations. Read his works..especially "Up from Slavery".
 
$1000 said:
Lol, we've gone 20 trillion into debt, but reparations would break the bank? That's beside the point, I support land redistribution anyway. The five largest landowners in the US own more land than all black people in America combined. Take it. Hell, take it from the top 100 land owners. There we go. Then you can put resources into building and renovating towns which make more sense, ones that are walkable and more self-contained. And these are investments which would actually pay off because guess what? Black people who have access to the means of production don't need so much assistance. They get out of the cities. Same goes for the rust belt.
Click to expand...

Are blacks today prohibited from starting business or something?
 
j-mac said:
Are blacks today prohibited from starting business or something?
Click to expand...

Banks typically won't loan poor black people money, and usually they start businesses outside of the black community if they do get capital, in more gentrified areas. People can't just pull startup capital out of their ass, and if there's no consumer market due to poverty then it's better to invest elsewhere. That's part of why I support UBI; it instantly creates a consumer market wherever there are people, and thus encourages local entrepreneurs and really helps to pull people out of poverty. Means tested welfare does the opposite, and discourages people trying to become economically mobile.
 
Last edited:
$1000 said:
Banks typically won't loan poor black people money, and usually they start businesses outside of the black community if they do get capital, in more gentrified areas. People can't just pull startup capital out of their ass, and if there's no consumer market due to poverty then its better to invest elsewhere. That's part of why I support UBI; it instantly creates a consumer market wherever there are people, and thus encourages local entrepreneurs and really helps to pull people out of poverty. Means tested welfare does the opposite, and discourages people trying to become economically mobile.
Click to expand...

Save it....Redistribution, and wealth confiscation are communist ideals that will NEVER take hold here...Blacks have the same opportunity to advance as anyone else, that you argue they don't is just perpetuation of the Democrat plantation mentality....
 
austrianecon said:
Can we have some common sense the Union Army (the North) paid in death and injury to free slaves. The Southern plantations were broken up (40 acres and a mule) to the point by 1910 15m acres were owned by African Americans.

Booker T. Washington was against reparations. Read his works..especially "Up from Slavery".
Click to expand...

The Union army didn't fight to free the slaves, they fought to preserve the Union. Most people, North or South, were racist back in those days. Abolitionism was not the majority position in the North, and Union soldiers were famously caught preparing to ship 'freed' Gullah people in the Sea Islands to Cuba to resell them back into slavery after raiding their food supplies.

The forty acres and a mule would have been an awesome idea. But... it didn't actually happen. It's infamous in American history as a broken promise. Many blacks became sharecroppers who didn't own the land which they worked. Some homesteaded. But a lot of them lost their land (much of which was privately purchased) during periods of economic depression.
 
j-mac said:
Save it....Redistribution, and wealth confiscation are communist ideals that will NEVER take hold here...Blacks have the same opportunity to advance as anyone else, that you argue they don't is just perpetuation of the Democrat plantation mentality....
Click to expand...

Okay buddy, I'm not even a democrat. Redistribution was the position of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, it's as American as apple pie. You're just more influenced by a bunch of Cold War apologists for capitalism than you are by economists in the American tradition like Henry George. Fun fact: even those apologists supported UBI! Hayek did so explicitly, and Friedman did so in the modified form of a negative income tax. Right now, the current mind-worm that has infected the American right demands that they kneel before multinational corporations who want to turn this country into a gray sea of mindless, hedonistic consumers. These corporations also hate anything that the 'conservatives' supposedly want to 'conserve'. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd spit on any of the speakers at CPAC.
 
Last edited:
$1000 said:
Banks typically won't loan poor black people money, and usually they start businesses outside of the black community if they do get capital, in more gentrified areas. People can't just pull startup capital out of their ass, and if there's no consumer market due to poverty then it's better to invest elsewhere. That's part of why I support UBI; it instantly creates a consumer market wherever there are people, and thus encourages local entrepreneurs and really helps to pull people out of poverty. Means tested welfare does the opposite, and discourages people trying to become economically mobile.
Click to expand...

Banks typically won't loan poor people money, full stop. Most black people are not poor.
 
$1000 said:
Okay buddy, I'm not even a democrat. Redistribution was the position of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, it's as American as apple pie. You're just more influenced by a bunch of Cold War apologists for capitalism than you are by economists in the American tradition like Henry George. Fun fact: even those apologists supported UBI! Hayek did so explicitly, and Friedman did so in the modified form of a negative income tax. Right now, the current mind-worm that has infected the American right demands that they kneel before multinational corporations who want to turn this country into a gray sea of mindless, hedonistic consumers. These corporations also hate anything that the 'conservatives' supposedly want to 'conserve'. If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd spit on any of the speakers at CPAC.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I made any statement about what you are politically....Seems you're a little sensitive about having the ideas you espouse so clearly communistic in nature, exposed...No matter how many greats in history you try to take out of context to bend to your ideas, they won't take hold here 'buddy'....And I think you know it deep down.
 
j-mac said:
I don't believe I made any statement about what you are politically....Seems you're a little sensitive about having the ideas you espouse so clearly communistic in nature, exposed...No matter how many greats in history you try to take out of context to bend to your ideas, they won't take hold here 'buddy'....And I think you know it deep down.
Click to expand...

You got me buddy, I'm a dyed in the wool Catholic commie who voted for Trump in 2016. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids, and your dumb dog.
 
vanceen said:
Banks typically won't loan poor people money, full stop. Most black people are not poor.
Click to expand...

But blacks are disproportionately poor, and even when you compare apples to apples the black people receive a disproportionate impact when it comes to available loans.
 
$1000 said:
You got me buddy, I'm a dyed in the wool Catholic commie who voted for Trump in 2016. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids, and your dumb dog.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you are religiously, or politically, redistribution of anything aquired by the means of Government taking from those who own it, is tyranny...period....Hide behind the Church, it's still communist in nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom